Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Court Strikes a Blow for Marriage

1

lol, gays don't have the right to divorce? teh gays beat the conservatives at their own game, the iron-clad marriage licence

but really thats just stupid

Posted by vooodooo84 | December 7, 2007 2:08 PM
2

Congreve said it best --

Marry in haste, repent at leisure.

Posted by It's Mark Mitchell | December 7, 2007 2:15 PM
3

...what?

Posted by Mr. Poe | December 7, 2007 2:15 PM
4

Sorry. I'm stuck in the 17th Century today.

Posted by It's Mark Mitchell | December 7, 2007 2:21 PM
5

This isn't really RI's fault. MA married them; RI never said they could get married. Therefore, how does a RI court have any authority over them at all? Just like a judge (or Gavin Newsom) couldn't just "decide"to marry people with authority s/he doesn't have, the RI court doesn't have the authority to dissolve a marriage that doesn't exist in RI.

(tiresome but necessary disclaimer: Im gay and completely in support of gay marriage)

Suing for marriage rights is one thing; suing for gay divorce in a state that doesn't have gay marriage isn't necessarily intuitive.

Posted by torrentprime | December 7, 2007 2:28 PM
6

What torrentprime said.

Posted by Doug | December 7, 2007 2:33 PM
7

Also what torrentprime said.

Posted by James | December 7, 2007 2:35 PM
8

Agreed with everyone else.

First we can't marry, now we can't divorce.

OK, officially WTF?

Let's all make up our tiny little minds, shall we? Everyone would be SO much happier. Not to mention less confused.

Posted by Wolf | December 7, 2007 3:33 PM
9

@5, 6 & 7 - Speaking as a native Rhode Islander, I can assure this is totally RI's fault. Or to be more specific, the fault of the paleo-catholic democrats that dominate RI's politics.

Furthermore your argument is specious. It may be that West Virginia permits marriage between 12 year olds of opposite genders and Washington does not. But I assure you Washington will allow them to divorce in Washington and not force them to return to W. Virginia to legally divide their joint property (which is really what divorce is all about).

This news sucks for gay couples in RI who were hoping that, like their straight neighbors, they could get married in Mass but still live in RI (and thus not become Massholes).

Posted by Providence | December 7, 2007 3:37 PM
10

But how can this wonderful married couple ever run for the GOP nomination if they can't get divorced multiple times and cheat on their spouse?

Posted by Will in Seattle | December 7, 2007 4:12 PM
11

Word to torrentprime, again.

Since RI never recognized the MA marriage in the first place, they are already "divorced" in the eyes of RI. That is, RI will treat them as if they weren't married; isn't that what "divorced" means?

Or is this all just about couples (gay and straight) collecting little certificates to mark important transitions in their lives? Isn't that supposed to stop being important after grade school?

Posted by David Wright | December 7, 2007 4:30 PM
12

@11 - No David Wright, you are Wrong. RI may treat them as not married, but in order to legally separate whatever jointly held property they own in Mass where they were LEGALLY MARRIED, they will have to move back to Mass and get LEGALLY DIVORCED. Breaking up is hard to do, divorcing sucks, and having to move to a different state to divorce is fucking torture.

Listen you flip little queen, this is not about "collecting little certificates". This is about serious, grown-up legal issues that affect actual people. The women who have been denied the right to divorce in RI have been seriously fucked over.

Imagine, all you straight divorcees out there, how much crappier your divorces would have been if you all had to move to Massachusetts to end your crappy marriages.

Posted by Providence | December 7, 2007 4:38 PM
13

This is messed up.

If Britney can get married in Vegas one day, and get it annulled in LA the next day, then this lesbian couple should certainly be able to get divorced in RI, regardless of where they got married.

Posted by SDA in SEA | December 7, 2007 5:49 PM
14

Especially when there's Atlantic City just a short drive away.

Posted by Will in Seattle | December 7, 2007 5:50 PM
15

Hey Providence: I'm thinking of moving to Rhode Island. Anything cool going on there, at all, ever?

Re: the actual post, what SDA said. Crazy.

Posted by Former Masshole, now of the Aloha State | December 7, 2007 6:19 PM
16

What makes this so bad (and somewhat unexpected) is that the RI attorney general said last Feb. that Mass marriages would be valid in RI. This is what allowed Mass judges to permit RI residents to get married in Mass. So for RI to now say that Mass marriages aren't recognized throws RI couples who married in Mass in complete confusion. It is now completely unclear what the legal status of these couples is. Which totally sucks.

Posted by Jason | December 7, 2007 6:58 PM
17

@15 - Former Masshole - RI is a lovely place filled with nice people (for New England). Nothing "cool" ever, ever happens there. Ever. Not since 1636. Honestly.

Posted by Providence | December 7, 2007 8:55 PM
18

funny idea, the no divorce marriage. How about civil unions for all with full rights and no divorce marriages for men and women? given the current divorce rate I think there would be a massive die off of the institution of marriage.

Posted by MSW | December 7, 2007 9:09 PM
19

Providence@12: The only way that this couple has "jointly held property" in RI is in the same way that any two single people who live together and share expenses do. If they can agree on a division of that property, there is no more reason for the RI courts to get involved than they would for any other case of seperating housemates. And if they can't agree on a division of that property, the RI courts will adjudicate just like they would in the case of any other housemates whoose relationship had gone sour.

Posted by David Wright | December 7, 2007 11:56 PM
20

i'm sorry, i guess i'm confused why not one single person has brought up the Constitution yet. more specifically, the Full Faith and Credit part. every state is required by the Constitution to recognize any and all things made law in another state. if two people get married in massachussets, then rhode island, whether they allow same sex marriages, must recognize it as a marriage, and therefore must recognize the divorce. i thought activist judges were only liberals?

Posted by noey | December 8, 2007 2:29 AM
21

The reason no one brought up the full faith and credit clause, noey, is because of DOMA.

Posted by Jason | December 8, 2007 9:07 AM
22

Actually I think they will need a legal divorce decree to be completely safe. If either woman becomes involved in another relationship, she may have trouble trying to file for domestic partnership in some states if she is still legally married to someone else in MA.

It's really fucking ugly, and it is not just about jointly owned property.

Posted by Mike | December 9, 2007 10:55 AM
23

Let's just all pray for a moment that Huckabee doesn't get elected.

Posted by Cale | December 9, 2007 11:50 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).